The EF 110 was proposed by Junkers as a ‘Schnellstbomber’ (engl. fast bomber). The EF 110 featured a single fuselage design housing a powerful DB 613 engine, essentially twin DB 603s merged, propelling contra-rotating props at its nose. This configuration resulted in an exceptionally broad fuselage, accommodating two 500 kg bombs side by side within its internal bomb bay. The sole schematic of the aircraft, is dated December 11, 1942.
Kontakt
info@my3dbase.com
Junkers EF 110
Paired DB engines were a common way to boost power output of a single nacelle without the need to embark on a costly new engine development. In reality however, the installation of double engines turned out to be more complex than anticipated after all. An example of that was the He 177. The 177 was a twin nacelle multiple purpose aircraft. In essence a four engines bomber with two engines operating on a single propeller each. The design was plagued by continuous engine problems.
There also was a single propeller, double engine Heinkel, the He 119.
Design of the EF 110
Apparently Junkers engineers at least considered the option to build a fast bomber around a single DB 613. Only a single, minimalistic drawing survived [Luftwaffe, Secret Projects of the Third Reich', Dan Sharp]. A lot of the missing information has to be filled in from other sources:
- Landing gear design
- Armament (type and location)
- Radiator
- Cockpit layout
- Engine exhaust
The available 3-view drawing is slightly enhanced and scaled.
The side view vaguely highlights the location of the engine. From that, the location of the exhausts can be derived.
Inspiration for the double engine exhaust system is taken from the He 177 bomber, where the two middle exhausts are channeled into a common ducted exhaust system.
The powerplant: DB 613
The engine is crucial for the overall design. A good description of the DB 613 can be found here: [Source, external]
So the first efforts are dedicated to the CAD design of the engine, starting with a single DB 603.
Engine Cooling
Cooling of piston engines is a major challenge since this requirement inevitably introduces drag. Commonly know is also the fact that the double DB installations suffered from severe cooling issues due to the nature of the asymmetric installation. Transporting heat out from in-between the engines proofed difficult, as experienced by the He 177 for instance. Similar issues would have to be expected for the EF 110. From the drawing, an oval shaped annular radiator seems to have been the choice. Again, similar to the He 177. The installation was also investigated and potentially planned for the 177, see image below. So the approach is also implemented in the CAD design of the
Armament
Two internal 500 kg bombs are specified for the design. No other indications are made for additional armament in terms of cannons or guns. Complementary and as pure speculation, inspiration is drawn from DB613 installation studies conducted by Daimler Benz (see images below). Here, the central installation of a MK 412 cannon is proposed in different configurations. CAD studies confirm the feasibility, although the MK 214 was chosen instead. This is however purely speculative and not supported by sources. Similar to the MK 214 equipped Me 262, the EF 110 would have found itself in a bomber intercepting configuration. Subsequently, the bomb bay would serve as an additional fuel tank .
Some cannons need to fire through the prop arc and require synchronization. A similar issue was faced by the American XP-75. This would certainly reduce the rate of fire. Placing cannons with a decent amount of recoil far out in the wing inevitably creates large mending moments that would require structural reinforcements and hence increase the overall weight of the aircraft.
Sources say nothing about armament (apart from the internal bomb bay). So, the following gun/ cannon arrangement is speculative.
Most guns are outside the prop arc, apart from the two MG151's. The layout is inspired by FW studies for the Ta 152. A similar arrangement is chosen for the EF 110. It should be noted that the MG151 installation on top of the engine requires a slight change of the overall aircraft profile. Similar to the Ta 152, two bulges are introduced to accommodate the armament.
An internal bomb bay accommodating two 500 kg bombs is also part of the design.The location of the bomb bay seems to be located well behind the CG. This would create a down pitching moment upon bomb release. How this was accounted for is uncertain. But I have chosen to keep this in accordance with the original drawings.
The Kit
The kit is available here: SHOP
Bubble Canopy Do 435- fictional
Focke Wulf with BMW 802 engines- model kit development
ARADO E.395 model kit development
The EMW A-6 looks definitely cool enough to justify making a model kit for it. And as far as I know, there is no 1:48 scale model kit on the market currently. Some information from the www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com:
Damit Eure Kekse mit unseren Backförmchen so richtig gut funktionieren haben wir für euch ein paar Tips zusammengestellt. Vorab einmal das Rezept: 100 g Butter 50 g Puderzucker (kann dem eigenen Geschmack angepasst werden) 30 g Ei 200 g Mehl Die Mengen können unter Einhaltung des Mischungsverhältnisses erhöht werden. Zunächst wird der Puderzucker mit der Butter vermengt. Danach wir das Ei hinzugegeben. Anschließend wird das Mehl untergehoben. Wichtig: Damit der Teig die richtige Konsistenz erhält sollte er gekühlt werden; ca 30min im Gefrierfach oder 1-2 Stunden im Kühlschrank.
The PATHFINDER is essentially based on the standard NG-2. But it features a full auto mechanism, voltage indicator and safety catch. Max fps is 130, the rate of fire is approximately 900darts/min.
For this blaster we had to iterate ourselves through 17 different versions. Most deisgn solutions implemented on half- or full length darts where not applikable due to the different type of ammunition. Lets quickly dive into the main design drivers of this blaster.
The NG-2 GOBLIN was designed in 2019 and basically follows the design philosophy of the original NG-1. But, as always, you learn. So the NG-2 was an effort to reduce the overall complexity of a blaster while optimizing it for easy printing and quick assembly. After all, 3Dprinting is rather scalable by simply investing in new machines. However, post processing, assembly, testing and shipping quickly become bottlenecks in production.
We use 3D printers to produce our products. There are different types of printers and countless different processes. We have specialized in what is sometimes revered to as FFF (fuse filament fabrication). The process is rather cost effective and uses a simple process of depositing a thermoplastic material layer by layer. 3D printing technology used to be locked down by patents for decades, limiting the technology to large and costly machines. Once those patents ran out, a new generation of desktop printers started to emerge. These machines are rather simple in design, but manage to output parts with astounding quality. Also, due to the small investment costs, the process can now be parallelized which has a profund influence on production costs. At the core of all this, is the material. After all, it is the material in combination with a specific design that enables a desired functionality. And today, in 2020, PLA or 'polylactic acid' is one of the most widespread materials in desktop 3D printing. PLA outperforms almost any other material in this category in terms of strength and stiffness (yes, those are two different things ;)). An interesting comparison is published by simplfy3d here . This is especially true if we take into account the directional dependency of the material properties which is introduced by the FFF process. Out of plane strength, i.e. layer adhesion, suffers greatly for most materials. The overall knock down for PLA is relatively low.